had an interesting thought experiment ... one candidate wins, doesn't attack Bitcoin, reigns in gov spending, reduces inflation, saves the dollar ...or... the other candidate wins, increases gov spending, attacks Bitcoin, inflation goes wild, dollar falls apart, global scramble for dollar exit doors ... which one is better for Bitcoin? is either outcome even bad for Bitcoin? or as some suggest, does anything even stop this train regardless of who wins?
Until one candidate decides to implement biometric credentials to access the internet and institutes a social credit score that allows that access to be turned off. How do you access your bitcoin if you lose access to the internet?
You're not wrong, but there are scenarios that could destroy bitcoin. The question is, "are they likely?"
Also, how many people really have enough bitcoin to live for 4 years to the rest of their lives solely on bitcoin because I see a social credit score coming if the wrong candidate wins.
Excellent points and very real threats. My hope and belief is that we are early enough and there has been enough institutional adoption (which is controversial I realize) that the biggest threat to widespread and immediate Bitcoin adoptionis the existing system stabilizing.
Even in that scenario, I believe the transition from fiat to Bitcoin will be allowed to continue in a more orderly fashion, albeit likely a longer adoption curve.
Regarding Internet access, my hope is our global society will not stand for regulated access. There may be pockets of government overreach, but the genie is out of the bottle. The people demand access to information.
I hope so too, but sometimes it is handy to play devils advocate.
Oddbean new post about login | logout 